Gov. Bobby Jindal arrived in the United States in utero, his mother about three months pregnant. jindal-birth-certificate.jpgView full sizeGov. Bobby Jindal's birth certificate

As he wrote last year in his book, "Leadership and Crisis," his mother had been offered a scholarship in 1970 to complete a graduate degree in nuclear physics at LSU.

When she informed the university that she couldn't accept the scholarship because she was pregnant, "LSU wrote back and promised her a month off for childbirth if she changed her mind. LSU was so accommodating, and the opportunity to come to America so thrilling, that my parents accepted.

"So, my parents stepped out on faith, secured green cards, packed up a few suitcases, said their goodbyes, and took off for this exotic new place called Baton Rouge, Louisiana."

Interesting you’d say that. There are cases in which there was a “slight” reference to NBC. I’ve read Vattel, it’s online. I know it’s not our Constitution, but George Washington borrowed it from the library and never returned it. He felt it was important.

Perhaps, whomever has standing, (now who knows), can get the Supremes to look at it. But I don’t hold out hope.

Other than the first Presidents, whom couldn’t have been NBC’s because America didn’t exist yet, the 19th Amendment (?) fixed the slave issue of citizenship, why have there been no, non NBC’s of “my definition” if you will, up until Obama? Chester Arthur rumblings excluded. (i think that was him)

51
posted on 05/06/2011 10:10:48 PM PDT
by machogirl
(First they came for my tagline)

No, he’s not wrong. Although an argument can be made (based on Vattel and several other sources) that “natural born citizen” requires that both parents be citizens, the more commonly accepted view is (and has been for quite some time) that children born in the U.S. (except those born to ambassadors and diplomats, who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States) are “natural born citizens.” See, e.g., Lynch v. Clarke (1844); Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President Of The United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD L. Rev. 1,1 (1968).

That’s out of my non-techie mind. I did blow it up and was disturbed to find a link, on the official WH blog about the BC, to the other released to ? fact check, kos? anyway, at the bottom of the PDF document showed it was printed from SNOPES WEBSITE. Now why wouldn’t Barry or his campaign have the one they released in 2008 and have to go to SNOPES?

56
posted on 05/06/2011 10:15:08 PM PDT
by machogirl
(First they came for my tagline)

The fact that Washington borrowed Vattel's book from the library is irrelevant. The question is not how Washington would have interpreted the phrase, it is how a reasonable person in 1789 would have interpreted the phrase. As Justice Scalia wrote in Heller:

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." . . . Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

I would argue that it is much more likely that "ordinary citizens" would have understood "natural born citizen" as referring to something like the British common law concept of "natural born subject, rather than to the work of a Swiss legal theorist. Have you any evidence suggesting that Vattel's work was "known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation"?

There it is. Vitter is wanting to change the laws instead of abiding by them. Sorry, Vitter, but Jindal was not, is not, and never will be a NBC by the laws set out by the founding fathers in the Constitution. I like Bobby Jindal.... He would make a great president ... Look what he has done for Louisiana!.......But; I must admit his is "not" a Natural Born Citizen.... ******************************************************************************* Obama's ..."Legal"... Father Obama Sr. was a Kenyan with British Citizenship ****************************************************************************** Obama admits this!!...... Obama is... "not"... eligible to be POTUS because his ***********father was never an American Citizen!!*****************

Certainly most people who run for President fit your definition. However, Barry Goldwater, John McCain, and B.H. Obama, who do not, have been nominated by the major parties with little hesitation re: “natural born citizen”. If you want to lobby to have your definition written into law, go for it.

Amongst the backroom deals, there will not be. My understanding of my Senator McShamnesty is that he was NOT born on a base but in a city hospital. If this is interpreted as Barry voted on in the resolution about MCCain and interpreted as how Barry voted on it, then Barry believed that both parents were citizens of The United States. IMHO John wasn’t an NBC either. As Satindoll stated, there are many threads debating the NBC issue, with court cases, and Senator Barack Obama voting for the McCain resolution.

70
posted on 05/06/2011 10:27:59 PM PDT
by machogirl
(First they came for my tagline)

Vitter's bill is about "birth tourism" and anchor babies. It doesn't address presidential eligibility but common birthright citizenship. That is citizenship derived from birth parent's citizenship and/or birth location.

In California we had a clinic aimed at Chinese nationals specifically for them to come, give birth and go home. They did this so the new child would be American and they could avoid China's "one child" policy.

Yes, Barry G was born in the territory. I believe that would fit the definition. But again, he never was President.

Having gone through a bloody ten years of fighting toward the formation of a country Independent of Britain, it is understandable what the Founding Fathers would have meant by NBC. They did NOT want a President with British Allegiance.

73
posted on 05/06/2011 10:30:35 PM PDT
by machogirl
(First they came for my tagline)

We have doctors in Nogales, AZ that have set up advertisements for such “births”. Citizenship whether Naturalized or Birth on soil is one thing, but NBC, those words chosen by the Constitutional Authors is another.

78
posted on 05/06/2011 10:33:42 PM PDT
by machogirl
(First they came for my tagline)

If you want to lobby to have your definition written into law, go for it.

It is already written into the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution, and supported by no less than four Supreme Court decisions, the pertinent portions of which have been posted on FR multiple times.

A Natural Born Citizen is one born in the USA to parents who are citizens. That is what is required to be eligible for the office of president.

Ah! So, who wrote this scripted outcome that required several million politicians, lawyers, judges and party officials to, ah, "overlook" Obama's published "confession" that his father wasn't an American citizen?

And who paid for it?

And why did absolutely everybody among these several millions agree to participate in this conspiracy?

Natural law doesn’t need no stinking legal statute. A child born in a nation of citizen parents is a natural born citizen, period. There is no question about citizenship, not need for a legal definition and thus no legal statute.

So, natural born citizen is an eligibility requirement to be President per Article II of the U.S. Constitution. One must only meet the ‘citizen’ criteria to be a Representative of the House, or a Senator, but to be President you shall be a natural born citizen.

Vattel’s book was present at the writing of the Constitution, we know that from witnesses at the event, and the book is even mentioned in Article I!

Legal statutes exist concerning other births and who is a citizen: foreign national parents, in the U.S. legally, with a child born in the U.S. = native born citizenship; U.S. parents of a child born overseas = derived citizenship; A foreign national who becomes a U.S. citizen = naturalized citizenship.

Citizenship (the definitions of citizenship per our government) can be found at the following link:

Actually, it sounds like his bill doesnt address the NBC issue; he is looking stop the anchor baby phenomenon by denying citizenship to people born on US soil whose parents are not legal residents. Having not studied the details of the bill, I am prepared to stand corrected.

You're confusing them with facts. The commenters are befuddled and beset by their own tin foil theories.

If I were a betting person, and I'm not, I believe SCOTUS would decide only three classes do not fall under Natural Born Citizen: 1. those having formally renounced U.S. citizenship 2. those naturalized 3. those never citizens.

I'm not saying it's where I might draw the line, or necessarily where the Founders intended to, but I think it's where SCOTUS would set the standard if the question ever reached them.

I believe this court would affirm Jindal and Rubio as qualified.

However, as you point out, Vitter's bill has NO baring on eligibility for POTUS or VPOTUS. It's about the culture of anchor babies and birth tourism. From the article, it sounds like a bill worthy of consideration.

I appreciate the smiley, but not only have I looked, but the following definition is what I was taught and have thought for all my 59 years

A naturalized citizen is a foreign national who is granted citizenship in the United States after fulfilling certain requirements. In addition to the United States, many other nations offer naturalization to people who wish to apply for citizenship. The naturalization laws for various countries are typically available through their departments of immigration.

There are two basic categories of United States citizens. A natural citizen is someone born in the United States or born to American parents on foreign soil. A naturalized citizen is someone who was born in a foreign country, but took a series of steps with the end goal of being granted citizenship

Following the Constitution, that means Arnold (naturalized citizen) can be a governor or senator or anything in government except President.

I agree. I’m not a legal scholar, but I took Law Classes and I have read the Constitution, the case sitings listed on FR, and Vattel.

Barry has done enough to ruin the country. I’d like to see him removed or not elected again based on that. But I’d also like to see some kind of state elections laws stating that to be on the ballot, you have to prove you are eligible. Heck, my kids had to prove that for Little League and Cheerleading.

90
posted on 05/06/2011 10:47:51 PM PDT
by machogirl
(First they came for my tagline)

You can bet that if he ever does seek the office of president or vice president the democrats and media will challenge his eligibility to hold the office. They will do this without hesitation and without the slightest hint of embarrassment.

Okey, I’m no tin hatter. One has to only look as far as the voter fraud in Minnesota to see scripted outcomes. I didn’t believe him to be an NBC when he was the nominee. I know I’m not alone. But what can one do. I voted and not for him.

94
posted on 05/06/2011 10:54:19 PM PDT
by machogirl
(First they came for my tagline)

You are probably right. Amazing the hypocrites the MSM are. I have NO confidence in almost all of them. One time, long ago, when I delivered newspapers like any kid of the 70’s, being a journalist was a respectful position. Now, I don’t think so. Not for most of what passes as journalism. The embarrassment that passes as a newspaper in Phoenix, the Arizona Republic is one example. One I have personal experience with.

96
posted on 05/06/2011 10:57:30 PM PDT
by machogirl
(First they came for my tagline)

I understand a lot of people here feel very strongly about this, but it’s a dead horse. The legislature and the courts won’t touch it. There’s no legal block to McCain, Obama or Jindal running for President in 2012. Just throwing that out there.

Less than 100 years ago we had the 1916 election of Charles Evans Hughes (R) vs Woodrow Wilson (D). Hughes' father was a Brit as well.

Hughes, Goldwater and McCain don't really matter. They didn't win.

The parties are not the infallible determiners of eligibility but it is worth noting Republicans have run presidential candidates who don't fit the most strict "birther" claims of NBC: two citizen parents at time of birth.

Hell, Hughes was a former SCOTUS Justice when he ran! Later he returned to the court as Chief Justice.

Interestingly enough, a Democrat lawyer did write a piece arguing Hughes did not meet NBC qualification. My point is, both parties are hypocrites for dredging the eligibility up only when it suits their advantage.

Now if Obama acted to take on other citizenship, that is something fresh to look at but I haven't seen credible evidence.

I support eligibility bills to prevent future candidates from playing the games Obama has.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The fourteenth Amendment uses only the word citizen. Court cases decided definition of citizen but not NBC.

100
posted on 05/06/2011 11:06:17 PM PDT
by machogirl
(First they came for my tagline)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.